How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?


Thanks for being clear. It appears that by not engaging the words of Paul’s own assertions, you just offer arguments that he was incorrect about what was needed and what Jesus did. And your logic makes sense :slight_smile:

Yet, I personally find that I do experience inabilities that leave me far short of loving with my whole being, and wonder if Paul was onto something when he argues that the whole Biblical narrative is highlighting the failure and apparent inadequacy of God’s chosen people to be what they were called to be.


Your response is equally gracious. And after reading it, I think we are not far apart in our understanding.


No, not quite, but rather… those responding to God’s call to follow Christ are encouraged in the ways of righteousness as is indicative of numerous verses already mentioned etc.

Well yes, though I’d be saying… the consequential results of THE completed redemptive task is what we are to be “flesh out” — we’re not making it happen (Jesus did it all for all) but testifying to it.

Yeah that was one of those texts (Col 1:24) that always had me scratching my head until I realised Paul wasn’t referring to the magnitude of efficacy BUT rather, the scope thereof. Paul wasn’t making up for some deficiency or lack on Christ’s part, but rather, joining and making up the breadth of effect of the same… Jesus had previously said… “greater works than these shall ye do” — well considering all that Jesus did, one wonders how. But Jesus was talking about Himself being replicated manifold through his servant firstfruit saints — thus not in magnitude but in scope, i.e., in the breadth and reach God’s grace through His Body.

Not so much wrong but the real scope of the call was to unbelieving Israel, and if any beyond Israel so-joined they would likewise be blessed. Remember… Israel was in covenant with God and yet was under *covenant sanctions^ BECAUSE OF covenant unfaithfulness. Thus the call to repentance was the call to covenant renewal; and THAT came via Jesus (true Israel). Thus was the call to believe, i.e., confess and believe Christ as Israel’s true king — NOT Caesar (Jn 19:15; Lk 19:14; Acts 4:12; 17:7).

Well, the parousia was for THEM, one and all, and was still future and according to the epistles pertinent to THEIR times, or as Jesus said… “this generation” — so they wouldn’t have had any conception of bifurcating the realm or righteousness to a before or after scenario other than the fullness of blessing such would bring. They were genuine futurists, i.e., it ALL lay before THEM… we are of the post-parousia event and in that sense as believers are the offspring of those who first believed.


Bob, you said
Yet, I personally find that I do experience inabilities that leave me far short of loving with my whole being, and wonder if Paul was onto something when he argues that the whole Biblical narrative is highlighting the failure and apparent inadequacy of God’s chosen people to be what they were called to be.
On the contrary, I believe the whole Biblical narrative highlights the success of all those who believed in the power of God’s Spirit and followed Him.
Hebrews 11:30- 35 says this: "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace. And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong , became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again.
It goes on to say, “And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance that they might receive a better resurrection.”, meaning that through them, people might come to know the truth of God.

The Bible also speaks of the failure of those who pursue their own ways instead of the ways of the one true God.

Davo, the nation of Israel was NOT in covenant with God. They threw His covenant aside and took up their own version as it says in Galatians 4: 24-25 “For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia…” thus a need for truth and a reminder of the everlasting covenant given to Abraham which says to circumcise the foreskin of your heart and “I will be your God and you will be My people”,


Israel WAS in covenant disobedience toward God… hence the bondage they were under, as was typical of their story BECAUSE OF their stubbornness of heart.


LLC, as I said, Paul may be incorrect, but I personally relate more to his and the prophets’ assessment that Israel direly needed deliverance, and David’s humble recognition that, “I was sinful from the time of my birth,” and “my sin is always before me.”

But your own feeling about success in loving God with all your being, and your neighbors as yourself is notable and interesting.


[quote=“davo, post:807, topic:6381, full:true”]

Dave: Well, the parousia was for THEM, and was still future and according to the epistles pertinent to THEIR times…

Are you answering that Jesus’ words about God’s standards only apply to Jews, and not to anyone after AD 70? Does referring to the epistles also as “pertinent” to “THEIR” time imply that the whole NT had to be written before AD 70, and needed to be understood by later readers as not pertinent (or relevant) to their times?

If so, do you find that the early Christians understood that Jesus’ teaching and the epistles’ standards as well were no longer applicable in the way they were before AD 70? Can you cite places where Paul clearly articulates the demarcation of such a profound distinction? If you are claiming that nearly all Christendom missed this profound implication of the text, my sense is that a high bar of demonstration is needed.

You also assert that Jesus has already done “ALL for all.” That seems to define “ALL” too broadly. For I see the apostolic commands as relevant to what yet needs to be done.

You further say, “The real scope of the NT call was to unbelieving Israel.” I’m not seeing e.g. where Paul agrees that his call is now more for Jews as opposed to Gentiles.

Doesn’t the NT appear to assume that the apostles’ invitation and message applies to all, and even that it calls for faithful obedience to it until the day when the dead are raised with new bodies?


Price had a sermon (when he was still a pastor) that really hit home to me.

Disappointment with God

Last week I made the claim that we can get as close to God as we want to. And I stand by that. But there is another side to the thing. And that is this: in due time, I suggest, you will find yourself against a blank wall. You will conclude that with your mind you serve the law of God, but with the flesh you obey the commands of sin and death. And then what are you to conclude? You may look back in shame, or perhaps in bitterness, at what now seem the over-optimistic and inflated terms of the promise of sanctification that you once embraced. You may find that the straight and narrow path of sanctification is none other than the Boulevard of Broken Dreams!..

There is such a thing as spiritual disillusionment, disappointment with God. You feel far from God, but you know that despite the face-saving slogan, it was not you who moved. Rather, you take as your own the plaintive words of George Harrison’s psalm:

“I really want to know you, but it takes so long, my Lord.” If you have reached this point, I have some things to say to you. Or, even if you aren’t there yet, perhaps you can remember them in case that rainy day ever comes…

In all this I am not talking about a mere period of “spiritual dryness” which one might expect to endure for a while, a dark night of the soul which one hopes will end but fears will not. I am talking about the result of maturity, a mid-religious-life crisis, if you will, when you just have to realize that you are not going to become the pious angel you once thought you might be. You realize that it was never a realistic goal. You come to accept that Karl Barth wasn’t being pessimistic, he was being realistic, not unbelieving, but free of “childish things,” when he said,

Let us be honest. If we relate to ourselves, to you and me, to this or that Christian (even the best), that which is said about the conversion of man in the New Testament… it will have the inevitable smack of hyperbole and even illusion -and the more so the more we try to introduce it… [into] the Christian life. What are we with our little conversion, our little repentance and reviving, our little ending and new beginning, our changed lives…? How feeble is the relationship, even in the best of cases between the great categories in which the conversion of man is described in the New Testament, and the corresponding event in our own inner and outer life! (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/2, pp. 582-83. Quoted in James M. Gustafson, Christ and the Moral Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968, p. 95)…

There are plenty of people who do a passable job mimicking New Testament Christianity in our day. They are the pietists, the literalists, the adventists, the dogmatists, the exclusivists, the tongue-speakers and miracle-believers. Anyone else, they regard as mere worldlings, half-Christians. They point to their greater numbers and condescendingly tell mainline churches that, if they would embrace full-bodied Evangelicalism they would be growing. There is a great irony in that claim, for sooner or later, it is they who will be jumping ship.

The adolescent grandiosity that colors their religious life now will eventually die down, and they will become contemptible “half-Christians” like those they now pity. But they will be worse hypocrites than those others because, unlike them, they will continue to quote the fanatical texts of the New Testament as if they really believed them.

There is more to the sermon and it can be found here, but Price describes exactly my condition. I went from a “casually raised fundamentalist in my youth, to an fundamentalist zealot in my late teens to early 20’s, to a realist about the time I become a Father (12+ years ago) in my mid 20’s” and Price’s description of that journey seems, to me, dead on. I may have wavered back and a forth a bit, even in Fatherhood, but ultimately, it has been firmly planted in the realist position. The more I viewed people who claimed this higher walk and saw their glaring same imperfections as me, taught me that some people are really blind when looking into themselves.

So, I guess I agree with Bob (both Bob’s really) on this one. One can only maintain zealotry for so long before they start to see the reality of the situation. Certainly some may stubbornly hold out (and quote the parable of the soils, no doubt), but most of us figure out perfection, even almost perfection is simply not reality and everyone who claims to have attained or near it, in my experience has blind spots large enough to blot out the sun.


Yes, Gabe, I like this. My personal impression is that all extreme views of human nature and our sanctification are off the mark, and that the traditional Jewish reading that we are all ‘mixed bags’ is more balanced. This implies that we are capable of experiencing and doing much good, but still are finite and ego-centered and thus demanding some kind of ‘perfection’ is wrong-headed. Thus the grace of forgiveness and in the midst of my shortcomings, accepting myself as I am, and yet seeking to lovingly move ahead is what works best for me.




Bob, your idea of extreme views that are off the mark might need to be somehow put into perspective. You Bob, have no Holy Grail to say what anyone is or is not to believe. Paul was surely trying to tell both the Jew and Gentile believers that Christ came. And he reconciled first of all the Israelites that would hear his word and act accordingly, and would be saved, saved, from destruction. This salvation was to there and then. The atonement was Paul’s message to the folks he was talking to…



Wow MM, this observation was not any attempt to tell others what they must believe, much less claiming that I have any holy grail. I was simply sympathizing personally with Gabe’s skepticism about claiming that I have arrived at perfect maturity.

It happens that I did my doctoral dissertation on Wesley’s teaching of Christian Perfection, and while I was deeply impressed with Wesley’s life (and the honesty that he never claimed to have personally achieved this) I personally saw his exegesis and perceptions of human nature as short of reality. But stating my own impression of such a question is always just my own opinion, and never intended to be taken as a personal attack on you or demand that others believe in my perception.

Grace be with you,


Thanks Bob, I appreciate your position.

Thanks Bob and your statement “stating my own impression of such a question is always just my own opinion, and never intended to be taken as a personal attack on you or demand that others believe in my perception”

Is quite a statement.

.Thanks brother. (And that is a real statement) :smiley:




[quote=“Bob_Wilson, post:811, topic:6381”]

NO… but given such was written too them in that historical context and what THAT meant to them AND what it was meant to mean to them cannot be ignored; so one needs to ask… what did THIS actually mean to them, i.e., HOW would THEY have actually understood this? IOW for example… was Jesus just glibly speaking nebulous words over their heads OR was he Israel’s prophet giving them due warning of impending doom pertinent to them? — I’m thinking the latter.

There is quite a deal of modern scholarship out there that acknowledges the case for just that.

It’s HOW (past those times) one makes such pertinent or relevant. You can make such relevant in terms of finding and drawing life principles to oneself WITHOUT requiring or creating all manner of spurious “prophetic timetables” etc. For example… we can read some historical account in the OT (say the fall of Jericho) and possibly find a given principle buried therein that we somehow make applicable in our situation WITHOUT needing to have THAT entire literal scenario to be played out again for us the learn therefrom. We do similar all the time with given biblical stories and characters WITHOUT getting all bent up over it.

That’s a bit of a wrong question because they didn’t have that thought in mind in the first place… THEY had the warnings of impending alarm and the means whereby they could survive it, i.e., heed Jesus’ and the apostles’ words and be obedient to them.

As already noted… what I originally referred to was Christ’s specific redemptive task (singular) was FOR ALL; and then yes, the consequences of how the results of that play out (again on behalf of all) is where believers get involved in the annunciation of such… which of course for believers involves said “apostolic commands” as deemed relevant etc.

Well it was more a case of… to the Jew FIRST and THEN the Greek etc. The early church was predominately Hebraic, which is why it took off and spread so fast, and in part why it was seen by Rome as yet just another Judaic sect.

Unless Israel was redeemed the Gentiles would not be reconciled and thus have no hope… Jesus came as Israel’s Redeemer (Mt 1:21) and by virtue of his obedience to the call was summarily appointed the world’s Lord (Acts 2:36).

Paul encounted two significant problems in his ministry to the burgeoning church… one was Jewish exclusivism (Acts 15:1-2, 5, 24; Gal 2:4; 5:12) and the other was Gentile separatism (Rom 11:17-22). On the one hand certain Judaisers were insisting on the necessity of law observance (circumcision) for salvation, while on the other certain Gentiles were claiming by virtue of their inclusion that God was finally done with OC national Israel (branches broken off), i.e., that God had forsaken Israel — both were wrong (Rom 11:1-2, 28, 31).

Well the main thrust and call was to “faithful obedience—until the day” i.e., the Day of the Lord, aka the Parousia — which from my understanding was AD70.


Davo, I appreciate your detailed response (though I get lost on some of our salient differences amid some of the nuances). But this final assertion seems pivotal to it. I do not find that most NT scholars would bet anything that it was all written before AD70, nor that most serious Bible students have recognized that its’ focus on “faithful obedience” was to be clearly recognized as lasting only “until AD70.” Indeed, as I implied, while I see much realized eschatology, I see an expectation of needed obedience that extends to events such as the resurrection of the bodies of the dead that extends far beyond AD70.

I don’t know what it means to assert that Gentiles can only have hope or reconciliation if “Israel was redeemed” in AD70. I see Jesus as fulfilling the need for a faithful Israel, but I don’t even perceive that Jews in general experienced redemption. So again, while the cross declared God’s forgiving stance, I perceive the NT church as reasonably concluding that it should invite both Jews and Gentiles to be reconciled to God as they followed Jesus in repentant faith and obedience.

I agree that it’s important to ask what Jesus’ words would mean to his original hearers, though I’d add that we should also ask what the Gospel editors of such words would expect they would teach the later generations of a Gentile/Jewish church for whom they wrote.

Our interaction sprung from my observation that Matt. 25’s teaching about judgment being based on God’s emphasis on righteous deeds revealed God’s ongoing nature. You appeared to reply that this juridical separation of sheep and goats was describing the Parousia which you take to have been completed in AD70 (and thus applies only to the original Jewish hearers?). I see no certainty that this is all, or even necessarily any, of what Jesus was driving at here. It certainly is the interpretation of a tiny amount of Bible students through the ages.

But even if readers exceptionally surmised that Jesus was thinking of some kind of judgmental division accomplished in A70, I’m unclear how that would rebut my perception that the church’s Gentile readers would expect that God’s priority seen here upon his people’s deeds toward the least would reflect God’s unchanging nature and values, and thus his consistent approach to evaluating our standing with him. And thus I’d have been asking, wow, how am I treating the least?

Of course, I realize that just as I can point to a Biblical pattern that God prioritizes this pursuit of faithful obedience, you can point to texts that you believe argue that God has already completely exonerated everyone apart from any further responses in their lives. But that difference in interpreting the narrative appears to bring us back to paragraph one, and you pivotal belief that we should see that such a call was only until it was suspended in AD70.

Or am I so illiterate here, that I am twisting your view?


I agree with Chad and Bob’s reply - is also iin agreement. As someone who has seen some Theosophists defend Esoteric Christianity, at the Liberal Catholic Church. Or Christian Scientists defend their version of Christian idealism…Well, NOTHING surprises me here. I’m more interested in seeing how folks present and defend their ideas. Half the problem is determining, where someone is coming from.

Just a note here. This is a VERY INTERESTING interview…with a Liberal Catholic, church bishop. And I hung around their church, for a couple of years or so. But the clergy were also Theosophists (Just ONE church, mind you)…So they promoted Esoteric Christian - which I disagree with. But if you can find a Liberal Catholic Church, they would welcome guests, who are universalists…and entertain ALL the views presented, on this forum.

As far as Christian Science is concerned, I feel their method of spiritual healing - is VERY REAL INDEED. But I TOTALLY disagree with them…that it can’t be combined with modern medicine, ancient healing modalities or other forms of spiritual healing. Which would dismiss all the spiritual and healing ways, of the Native Americans.

I’m sure some folks with find…My idea that the Zombie Apocalypse…Is the most probable, end times tribulation model - STRANGE INDEED.


Bob, are you a perfect person? Do you think anyone who dies imperfect will go to hell?


I’m not Bob, but as to asking him that question— WOW!


No and No. I’d thought my remarks to Gabe and confessions to LLC, and even my comments about my dissertation, would have all made it clear that I perceive claims of perfectionism to be unrealistic.

My impression is that the Biblical narrative presents God as recognizing that we will not be perfect or sinless. Indeed, that the purpose of sacrifices was to be a sign that provision was made to move forward despite our failures. And I’d think that the call to forgive as God does highlights that perfection need not, and should not, be demanded.